Quotes of the day

posted at 9:41 pm on November 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny” and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a document on Tuesday setting out a platform for his papacy and calling for a renewal of the Catholic Church…

In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the “idolatry of money”, and urged politicians to “attack the structural causes of inequality” and strive to provide work, healthcare and education to all citizens.

He also called on rich people to share their wealth. “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills,” Francis wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?”

***

Francis said trickle down policies have not been proven to work and they reflect a “naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Pope Francis wrote.

“My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost,” he tweeted in May. A day earlier he denounced as “slave labour” the conditions endured by Bangladeshi workers killed in a building collapse. In September he said that God wanted men and women to be at the heart of the world and yet we live in a global economic order that worships “an idol called money”.

There is no denying the radicalism of this message, a frontal and sustained attack on what he calls “unbridled capitalism”, with its “throwaway” attitude to everything from unwanted food to unwanted old people. His enemies have certainly not missed it. If a man is to be judged by his opponents, note that this week Sarah Palin denounced him as “kind of liberal” while the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs has lamented that this pope lacks the “sophisticated” approach to such matters of his predecessors. Meanwhile, an Italian prosecutor has warned that Francis’s campaign against corruption could put him in the crosshairs of that country’s second most powerful institution: the mafia.

Sanders says he continues to welcome Francis’ criticism of the global financial system, which both the senator and the pope say has plunged more of the world into poverty while benefiting the wealthy few.

“At a time when the gap between rich and everyone else is growing wider, at a time when Wall Street and large financial institutions are exerting extraordinary power over the American and world economy, I applaud the pope for continuing to speak out on these enormously important issues,” Sanders said. “Pope Francis is reminding people of all walks of life, and all religious backgrounds, that we can and must do better.”

***

Albeit in somewhat passive terms, the Church had made its political and economic position clear: It rejected communism, and specifically its suppression of religion, in favor of the West and democracy—which were tied tightly to free-market economic principles. Many years later, the Polish Pope John Paul II was given credit for helping to undermine communist rule in his country, where Catholic churches provided a space for anti-communist artists and thinkers to hold discussions and distribute anti-regime writings.

This is more than just a lecture about ethics; it’s a statement about who should control financial markets. At least right now, Francis says, the global economy needs more government control—an argument that would have been unthinkable for the pope just 50 years ago.

***

It’s interesting to think of Pope Francis’ assessment in light of Pope John Paul II’s past condemnation of communism and the “social assistance state.” In 1991, he observed…

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called ‘Welfare State.’ This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoke very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State.’ Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending, In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.”

***

[W]hat I think is curious about this document is a longstanding peeve of mine. Ever since the Galileo incident, the Catholic Church has generally tried to be careful to get its science right before it opines on ethical matters related to science. It takes seriously questions of bioethics and has developed internal expertise on those issues. Yet when it comes to economics, the Church seems to have no qualms about opining on issues of economics without even the slightest idea of what it is talking about.

I mean, seriously?

“204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.”

Well darn that John Paul II for helping to bring freedom to Poland and getting rid of all those “decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes” that were so beneficial to the Poles under Communism.

***

Capitalism does not breed poverty; it alleviates it. Compare the life expectancy of a medieval serf–rarely 30 years–to someone living in Western Europe today: Pope Francis, for example, who has reached the ripe old age of 76 thanks to modern medicine. He lived through the Cold War and its showcase of the obvious disparity between the United States, a land of economic “survival of the fittest,” according to Francis, and the Soviet Union. It was “a country with some of the most fertile land on the continent of Europe,” writes economist and TAS contributor Thomas Sowell, where the market principles that Pope Francis rergards suspiciously were abandoned, and as a result “at least 6 million people starved to death in the 1930s[.]”…

The pope, who recognizes in his exhortation the importance of economics, should keep in mind that the limited resources of the world could not possibly be allocated or “distributed” without some sort of system that allocates them efficiently, taking into account supply and demand, as well as scarcity and the difficulty of production and extraction: that is, prices. For someone who writes of others’ displaying “crude and naïve trust”, the pope sometimes betrays a rather naïve understanding of economics.

***

I don’t wish to stand in the way of people enjoying other people’s prejudices, but Francis’s hyperbolic rants about the role and allegedly dictatorial power of free markets are embarrassing in their wrongness. Cheering them on is like donating money to a Creationist Museum, only with more potential impact…

More people have escaped poverty the past 25 years than were alive on the planet in 1800. Their “means of escape” was largely the introduction of at least some “laws of competition” in endeavors that had long been the exclusive domain of authoritarian, monopolistic governments…

To look upon the miracles of this world and lament the lack of “means of escape” is to advertise your own ignorance. To call it a “tyranny” is to do violence to any meaningful sense of that important word (much like Francis’s predecessor did with his silly “dictatorship of relativism” crack). And to make such absolutist statements as “everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest” is to admit up front that you are not primarily interested in spreading truth, but rather in exciting popular passions. Which I suppose makes sense.

***

Troubling? Yes, and that’s probably too gentle a word. If this was just a discussion within the Roman Catholic church aimed solely at how its members should behave that, for the most part, would be up to them. But the pope’s words are rather more than that. In Francis, we see a charming and charismatic advocate (complete with large megaphone and the attention of a sizeable slice of the world) for economic policies of a type that have failed and failed and failed again, not least in the Argentina of his youth, the Argentina of Perón, the Argentina that he evidently still sees as some sort of model.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?”

That’s retarded. The stock market losing 2 points is not news.

I don’t care if the Pope wants to tell all rich Catholics to give their money away. I don’t even care if he tries to tell all rich people to give their money away. The minute he starts slamming capitalism (which has given the world – and the poor – so much) and calls for any government to start confiscating wealth … that’s a whole different story.

It goes with the territory.
The Dali Lama stated that he aligned with Marxist ideology. Communists drive him out of his country and murder and oppress the Tibetan people…and he sort of digs Marxists.
Go figger.

That was exactly my first thought. A European socialist laments the economic inequality of people — and blames the cryptozoological monster “unfettered capitalism.”

–Stop me if you’ve heard this.

In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the “idolatry of money”, and urged politicians to “attack the structural causes of inequality” and strive to provide work, healthcare and education to all citizens.

There are no “structural causes” of economic inequality in a free economy. There are “structural causes” in a structured economy.

When the Pope begins to sound like obama, the Catholic Church has a BIG problem. I am hearing a lot of concern and confusion from my fellow Catholics about Pope Francis – he is quickly turning off traditional Catholics and pushing us away with his radical beliefs – VERY troubling.

He clearly knows very little about economics. He’s really coming off as just a social justice peddler. He should contemplate adding “Thou shall not be a useful idiot” to his now growing list of Commandments.

Is there any difference between the encyclical’s philosophy and communism? I am perfectly willing, on this matter, to take the word of an eminent Catholic authority. Under the headline: “Encyclical Termed Rebuff to Marxism,” The New York Times of March 31, 1967, reports: “The Rev. John Courtney Murray, the prominent Jesuit theologian, described Pope Paul’s newest encyclical yesterday as ‘the church’s definitive answer to Marxism.’ . . . ‘The Marxists have proposed one way, and in pursuing their program they rely on man alone,’ Father Murray said. `Now Pope Paul VI has issued a detailed plan to accomplish the same goal on the basis of true humanism—humanism that recognizes man’s religious nature.’”

He clearly knows very little about economics. He’s really coming off as just a social justice peddler. He should contemplate adding “Thou shall not be a useful idiot” to his now growing list of Commandments.

Flange on November 26, 2013 at 10:00 PM

If I wanted to hear anything about Social Justice, I’d go back to college. Right after the accompanying lobotomy.

I think all the screeching about MARXISM!!!11!one! and Pope Castro might be a tad overblown if you read what he actually said. But Cons love skimming headlines and filling in the blanks from there as much as anyone I guess.

And here’s something that’s been bugging me lately: when did we decide social justice is a bad thing? Isn’t that kind of stupid? To actually say “Justice? lol f%#@ that noise, yo!” Yeah, just because leftists invoke it all the time, we’re against the concept of justice, because the leftists called dibs and that’s that, I guess. Saying we’re against social justice is just like if we decided to buy into the liberal terminology on abortion and start calling ourselves anti-choice.

If you ask me (and I know you didn’t but whatever) the correct course of action is to reclaim this phrase, not trash it.

I don’t think the secular world is in the Pope’s purview. Particularly politics. He’d serve the Church and his flock better if he concentrated on administering the Church and ministering to his flock through the outreach and auspices of the Church, as is his mandate, rather than meddling in secular affairs.

I don’t think the secular world is in the Pope’s purview. Particularly politics. He’d serve the Church and his flock better if he concentrated on administering the Church and ministering to his flock through the outreach and auspices of the Church, as is his mandate, rather than meddling in secular affairs.

I’m afraid he sounds a lot more than just “somewhat”. Why did Benedict feel that he had to step down and let this man be the new Pontiff?

I am just glad we are not spending Thanksgiving with my liberal Catholic in-laws. I am sure they are in hog heaven about this. It is hard enough to share events with them because they really despise conservatives but now we have to be divided by right vs left religion, even though we share the same faith. Ugh.

Maybe the Pope could have a word with the administration of the Vatican, because when I visited there the bathrooms had neither toilet paper nor paper towels. I recall all sorts of things in the trash that tourists had used to..uh…you know.

The correct phrase is simply justice. Social justice is a progressive term designed to undermine justice and turn everyone into victims. This way people like Sharpton, for example, can then play victim group off of other victim groups. A “divided we fall” strategy.

A Pope that supports Marxism is passing the buck. It is the responsibility of the Church, not government to assist the poor. Advocating failed economic policy doesn’t cut it. Get to work. Feed the sheep and they’ll become cheerful givers.

I’m not a master of minutiae but this exactly like the liberation theology his predecessors condemned. The Church doesn’t need to be pro-capitalist in order to NOT be pro-marxist. But it’s more emotional than that, all the love for atheists, homos, muzzies, and jews is commendable but stands in STARK contrast to the lack of affinity the Church seems to have for its own traditionalists.

If you want to keep homeless people from dying of exposure, you’re going to need to force them into the shelters we’ve already built for them.

Getting rich doesn’t make people poor. And creating wealth does more for the poor than anything else we’ve ever tried.

I really think this pope is just not very deep with his language. He has all sorts of ideas and sometimes they just come out rather jumbled. Not all popes are going to be clear with their writing and speaking. The last two were particularly brilliant in this capacity.

Pope Francis has many redeeming qualities, but this stuff just isn’t his forte.

So when is the Catholic church going to help the poor and the needy by selling the hundreds of billions of dollars they have in real estate and the tens of billions of dollars they have in banks and in investments?… Lead by example Pope Francis…

The Church is mandated to reach out to the poor and to minister our souls. Interference in governance and secular affairs is a slippery slope. It’s why we separate the church and the state. They perform to separate and distinct functions.

No it is not… He is a socialist from Argentina… The Catholic church in Latin America has a very dark history of supporting communists and socialists… Besides do not be shocked if he endorses abortion and gay marriage in the future…

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.[55]

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence

59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

Thought I would quote the relevant bit.

The man is not wrong. I disagree with him that any so called “state” could do much about it. But the man is not wrong.

I’m not a master of minutiae but this exactly like the liberation theology his predecessors condemned. The Church doesn’t need to be pro-capitalist in order to NOT be pro-marxist. But it’s more emotional than that, all the love for atheists, homos, muzzies, and jews is commendable but stands in STARK contrast to the lack of affinity the Church seems to have for its own traditionalists.

This new encyclical, Evangelii gaudium by Francis, is just the latest in a long trend of attacks against capitalism by the Papacy.

Catholic doctrine is explicitly anti-capitalist, and explicitly pro-socialist. This isn’t some minutiae or detail.

You “traditionalists”, whatever that means – perhaps you dislike socialism, and wish the church hadn’t repudiated it’s horrible smear of Deocide against the entire Jewish people – will eventually have to decide if you will get in sync with the Vicar of Christ and the doctrine of the Papacy for the last 50 years, separate out and form your own church and become one of the hundreds of American varieties of Christian churches, or decide it’s all non-sense and you don’t need magic guidance in your life to know what is right or wrong.